If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   FDA: "Your products are drugs and therefore they may not legally be marketed without an approved new drug application." Are they talking about: A: Hemp? B: Untested medicine? or C: Walnuts?   (worldtruth.tv) divider line 191
    More: Asinine, FDA, drug applications, coronary artery disease, cancer types, HDL, Dietary mineral, investments, Frito-Lay  
•       •       •

14689 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2013 at 3:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-25 07:57:25 PM

rumpelstiltskin: fark you, marketers. There's nothing stupid about this particular law. Go think of some other way to sell your walnuts.


Done in one. Just because you want to sell shiat doesn't give you carte blanche to market pseudo-science and out-of-context half truths. 

/fark you, marketers.
//And fark you again for getting publicity for this contrived bullshiat.
 
2013-02-25 07:59:13 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: read what i wrote again... and again if you still don't get it: i claimed only that they cited studies, not SPECIFIC studies. I also made no claim as to verifiability.



So you honestly think that "According to Wikipedia, some guy in a lab coat told a blogger" is sufficient to satisfy the FDA about specific health claims?
 
2013-02-25 07:59:27 PM
I hate food lobby groups.

Fark Pistachios.
Fark Walnuts.
Fark Florida Oranges.
Fark The Other White Meat.
Fark the Incredible Edible Egg.
And double fark the American Dairy Council.

/I probably missed a few.
//I just needed to vent.
 
2013-02-25 08:03:22 PM

the ha ha guy: HindiDiscoMonster: read what i wrote again... and again if you still don't get it: i claimed only that they cited studies, not SPECIFIC studies. I also made no claim as to verifiability.


So you honestly think that "According to Wikipedia, some guy in a lab coat told a blogger" is sufficient to satisfy the FDA about specific health claims?


This in no way constitutes an authorization to take artistic license in what i said. Please look up the words that i used at Dictionary.com or a similar source, then try to read it without those artistic glasses on. If I make a claim, I will be VERY clear in said claim.

/or i will be a smartass
 
2013-02-25 08:04:25 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: I hate food lobby groups.

Fark Pistachios.
Fark Walnuts.
Fark Florida Oranges.
Fark The Other White Meat.
Fark the Incredible Edible Egg.
And double fark the American Dairy Council.

/I probably missed a few.
//I just needed to vent.


I hate all lobby groups.

/law for money
 
2013-02-25 08:08:12 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: This in no way constitutes an authorization to take artistic license in what i said. Please look up the words that i used at Dictionary.com or a similar source, then try to read it without those artistic glasses on. If I make a claim, I will be VERY clear in said claim.

/or i will be a smartass



I wasn't referring to your claims, I was referring to the claims made by Diamond, which currently consist of "studies on file in a library" and "studies published by a supermarket tabloid".

In any case, Diamond is required to provide legitimate studies to the FDA upon request. Apparently, they refuse to do so, thus the action being taken by the FDA.
 
2013-02-25 08:11:43 PM

the ha ha guy: HindiDiscoMonster: This in no way constitutes an authorization to take artistic license in what i said. Please look up the words that i used at Dictionary.com or a similar source, then try to read it without those artistic glasses on. If I make a claim, I will be VERY clear in said claim.

/or i will be a smartass


I wasn't referring to your claims, I was referring to the claims made by Diamond, which currently consist of "studies on file in a library" and "studies published by a supermarket tabloid".

In any case, Diamond is required to provide legitimate studies to the FDA upon request. Apparently, they refuse to do so, thus the action being taken by the FDA.


now that is an entirely different issue... and THAT i agree with. What I do not agree with is trying to classify a nut as a drug. That is the same kind of derpy bullshiat the DEA does with Marijuana AND Hemp. Same principle... That is a different subject, however, and it's dinner time for me, so I'll be back after eating.
 
2013-02-25 08:13:00 PM

Curt Blizzah: What about Chin-nuts?


they cure hysteria
 
2013-02-25 08:18:48 PM

Jument: Aigoo: Right then. So who wants to sue the shiat out of PepsiCo for the blantantly fraudulent implications and claims it makes saying it'll lower your cholesterol and prevent heart disease to eats bags and bags of their heart-healthy chips? Surely that's fraud?

I'm curious, what products are you talking about?
Personally I am fine with the FDA cracking down on advertising and packaging that suggests health benefits based on nothing.


Why don't you go have a look at the Frito Lay site (they're owned by Pepsi)? Or look at a package. Both strongly imply that they're healthy for you--0 transfats! Use only oils that are good and lower LDL (bad cholesterol) while maintaining HDL (good cholesterol)! All natural ingredients (um...potato chips should only have potatoes, oil, and salt...any chip can say that, it doesn't make it good for you). Their website has an entire secion dedicated to "your health."

Don't believe me they make these claims? Go look. Here's a direct quote from the website:

Frito-Lay snacks start with real farm-grown ingredients.  You might be surprised at how much good stuff goes into your favorite snack. Good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals. Or corn, one of the world's most popular grains, packed with Thiamin, vitamin B6, and Phosphorous - all necessary for healthy bones, teeth, nerves and muscles.

And it's not just the obvious ingredients. Our all-natural sunflower, canola, corn and soybean oils are considered to be healthier oils by the FDA because they contain good polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which help lower total and LDL "bad" cholesterol and maintain HDL "good" cholesterol levels. They also contain <20% of the bad saturated fat, which raises LDL, cholesterol and 0g of trans fat. Even salt, when eaten in moderation as part of a balanced diet, provides sodium which is essential for the body
.

They make those damn chips sound like farking health food, for the love of God! And the FDA lets them get away with it. Double standard. Pepsi should be held just as liable as Diamond, period, or Diamond should be allowed to state that many, many studies state the walnuts have these beneficial effects. Because fact is, walnuts are a goddamned health food compared to farking potato chips and cheetos.
 
2013-02-25 08:22:24 PM

papafree: Aigoo: But walnuts... 50-some papers backing up the claims and no lobbyists. So sorry, walnuts.

Follow the money, honey.

Yes, follow the money. Big Walnut puts lots of cash into 50 studies that purport their super incredible awesome health benefits. That doesn't mean they're good studies, but at least they can claim persecution when FDA finds they're being incredibly dishonest by paying scientists to conduct studies that make their products look healthier than they actually are.

/Love walnuts. super tasty snack.


I don't disagree that walnuts probably paid for the studies. The same as the cereal companies paid for the studies saying that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Like I said, follow the money.

You don't think Monsanto paid for the studies on corn and canola oil? you're kidding yourself.
 
2013-02-25 08:25:37 PM
What is it with all the nut hate, farking nutists

I hope walnuts do prevent cancer and you all get nut cancer and your nuts fall off due to your raging nuthatred

/nuts to you
//nuts
 
2013-02-25 08:31:05 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: now that is an entirely different issue... and THAT i agree with. What I do not agree with is trying to classify a nut as a drug.



They are not trying to classify all walnuts as a drug, only that specific product, with that specific packaging and advertising.

And even then, "classified as a drug" is merely an enforcement measure. If the FDA were to impose a small fine per infringement, the large corporations would pay it like a tax. If it were a large fine, the local/regional companies would be crippled over one honest mistake.

But under their current method, "if you call it a drug we treat it as a drug", everyone is treated equally under the law. Both small and large companies have a chance to retract or prove their claims. Only when the companies refuse do we even hear about it in the first place, as we're seeing here.

If Diamond had said "here are the reliable studies", the FDA would have backed off. If Diamond had said "we'll change our advertising", the FDA would have backed off. Instead, Diamond said "we're going to keep making our claims anyway because our studies say we can, but we're not going to let you see those studies that may or may not exist". Thus, the FDA is making them submit to the same standards as a drug manufacturer.
 
2013-02-25 09:13:00 PM

the ha ha guy: HindiDiscoMonster: now that is an entirely different issue... and THAT i agree with. What I do not agree with is trying to classify a nut as a drug.


They are not trying to classify all walnuts as a drug, only that specific product, with that specific packaging and advertising.

And even then, "classified as a drug" is merely an enforcement measure. If the FDA were to impose a small fine per infringement, the large corporations would pay it like a tax. If it were a large fine, the local/regional companies would be crippled over one honest mistake.

But under their current method, "if you call it a drug we treat it as a drug", everyone is treated equally under the law. Both small and large companies have a chance to retract or prove their claims. Only when the companies refuse do we even hear about it in the first place, as we're seeing here.

If Diamond had said "here are the reliable studies", the FDA would have backed off. If Diamond had said "we'll change our advertising", the FDA would have backed off. Instead, Diamond said "we're going to keep making our claims anyway because our studies say we can, but we're not going to let you see those studies that may or may not exist". Thus, the FDA is making them submit to the same standards as a drug manufacturer.


FTA: "These claims, Faloon notes, are well supported by scientific research: "Life Extension has published 57 articles that describe the health benefits of walnuts"; and "The US National Library of Medicine database contains no fewer than 35 peer-reviewed published papers supporting a claim that ingesting walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce heart attack risk.""

which indicates to me that these studies are well known... no searching the ancient archives of Egypt, or having to avoid the large cat in the basement guarding the file cabinet necessary... so, given that, why is this not evidence enough for the FDA, esp. considering the FDA itself makes similar claims?

/can we say "money grab" ?
//just my opinion
 
2013-02-25 09:27:56 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: which indicates to me that these studies are well known...



Are they? One source is a tabloid, and the other is a library that accepts everything submitted.

Regardless, Diamond obviously knows the names of the studies, yet they refuse to cooperate with the FDA at all. They could have settled this long ago with a simple list, instead they're trying to martyr themselves in the eyes of the "deregulate medicine" community.

This isn't like a police officer pulling someone over for a miraculously "busted taillight" that was intact seconds before, this is like someone with no taillights at all using the defense of "my anonymous mechanic who lives in some state you've never heard of says I don't need taillights and you can't prove otherwise".
 
2013-02-25 09:40:07 PM

the ha ha guy: HindiDiscoMonster: which indicates to me that these studies are well known...


Are they? One source is a tabloid, and the other is a library that accepts everything submitted.

Regardless, Diamond obviously knows the names of the studies, yet they refuse to cooperate with the FDA at all. They could have settled this long ago with a simple list, instead they're trying to martyr themselves in the eyes of the "deregulate medicine" community.

This isn't like a police officer pulling someone over for a miraculously "busted taillight" that was intact seconds before, this is like someone with no taillights at all using the defense of "my anonymous mechanic who lives in some state you've never heard of says I don't need taillights and you can't prove otherwise".


so, the FDA uses the same suspect data about omega-3 fatty acids? maybe it should fine itself then.

that is a horrible analogy...

this is more accurate:
this is like someone with taillights using the defense of "my well known mechanic who lives in a different state says "my taillights are road legal in this state."

/there are far more sources available than the two you mention... Here is a primer.
 
2013-02-25 09:53:00 PM
I'll bite, all you restless leg syndrome haters. It's a real thing, I have it. At the same time, I agree that it definitely sounds like BS to someone who doesn't. I don't have it that bad. I'll go a month, two, maybe more without anything at all, then I'll have a rough week or two of maybe 10-15 minutes a night of my leg wanting to spasm, which I can usually get rid of by getting up and pacing around the room for a few minutes. Nothing too bad, definitely not enough to even think about braving the magic drugs that supposedly cure it, which mostly seem to cause side effects that I would consider way worse than the RLS. But it is a real thing, no matter how shady it sounds.
 
2013-02-25 09:57:16 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: so, the FDA uses the same suspect data about omega-3 fatty acids? maybe it should fine itself then.



The FDA does allow specific claims about omega-3, but only from specific sources, which do not include walnuts. [1]

Since walnuts aren't on that list, Diamond has to cite their specific sources when asked. The rules are simple. If you say X cures Y, you must prove that X cures Y.

But despite the alleged prevalence of proof, Diamond is refusing to cite their claims at all. When the FDA gave them multiple avenues of becoming legal, Diamond decides to go with "help help I'm being repressed".
 
2013-02-25 09:59:48 PM

Olfin Bedwere: center


Because whoever formatted it is overdue to be slapped with a large trout. Way overdue.
 
2013-02-25 10:01:48 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: this is like someone with taillights using the defense of "my well known mechanic who lives in a different state says "my taillights are road legal in this state."



More like "my mechanic who lives somewhere in California but I will not name says..."

If they have the studies, they can name those studies. But what they're saying so far is "the studies are somewhere in that building, find them yourself".
 
2013-02-25 10:23:54 PM

WinoRhino: loki see loki do: WinoRhino: loki see loki do: Model 8 motherfarking sixteen, yo.

Is that the one with the attractive wooden base?

Damn straight.

Here's the thing with that particular model. One Christmas Eve I'm drinking martinis, I'm cracking nuts, smoking a little of the haze, right? I start to bug out a bit. The Christmas tree starts growing, I'm shrinking and all these army mice come out of nowhere led by this, like, mouse king I guess. At that point I'm calling at the ol' model 816 to help me out, right? Nutcrackers are supposed to fight this shiat off. But no. He's all "Look, I have an attractive wooden base!" Not legs, mind you, like a proper nutcracker. No bayonet. No intimidating red uniform. He's just wagging his wooden handle like a scared puppy. I had to fight off the mice creatures with a goddamned sword swizzle stick, and it was a biatch to get that olive off first. I finish off the mouse king, suffer a few bites, possibly rabies, all while the 816 just apologizes and offers me a goddamned filbert. fark the model 816 and its attractive wooden base. I regifted that biatch the next morning.


Thanks! you made my day. that was the funny!
 
2013-02-25 10:29:04 PM
FDA is right about this one. If the walnut folks dont want their product treated like a medicine then they cant run around claiming it treats diseases.
 
2013-02-25 11:03:16 PM

vudukungfu: One of the greatest cons was creating the FDA (it's for your own good) and letting the larger pharmaceutical concerns pull the strings.

How's that working out for you, america?


Pretty damn well actually.  Go and get a copy of the USP or NF before  FDA, take a look at the worthless and/or dangerous things that were prescribed at one point.  Or read up on the tragedy that was Elixir Sulfanilamide and ask again if FDA was worthwhile.
 
2013-02-25 11:47:15 PM

kingoomieiii: Revek: We need to identify these useless crats and sue the government to have them fired.  They waste tax payer money and provide nothing but bad will to the public.

I absolutely LOVE it when someone walks in, strolls past 100 opposition comments, and posts a short comment glad-handing the article.


I didn't stroll, I breezed past them.  I need 500 dollars more medicine than I get monthly.  There are no programs for me.  I work, I have no insurance, I live in the land of plenty but I can't have any due to a system that is corrupt beyond redemption.  The FDA and their clients the drug company's will forever be on my shiat list for creating this environment.  They didn't do it alone but they are a huge influence.
 
2013-02-25 11:56:56 PM
So, the FDA's doing its job, and therefore that's bad? What's next, walnuts becoming the central theme of "Atlas Shrugged III: The Nuttening"?
 
2013-02-26 12:06:46 AM

vudukungfu: One of the greatest cons was creating the FDA (it's for your own good) and letting the larger pharmaceutical concerns pull the strings.

How's that working out for you, america?

It's not like there's any connection between the FDA and an evil multinational biotech corporation

http://emmaspeaks.hubpages.com/hub/The-Revolving-Door-Between-Monsan to -the-FDA-and-the-EPA-Your-Safety-in-Peril
 
2013-02-26 01:39:19 AM
FWIW, here's the link to the actual FDA letter:

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825 .h tm

While I haven't read enough about walnuts to form an opinion one way or the other, searching the term "FDA conflict of interest" sure brings up a lot of stuff.
 
2013-02-26 01:44:36 AM
That's just nuts!
 
2013-02-26 02:39:05 AM

anotar: FWIW, here's the link to the actual FDA letter:

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825 .h tm

While I haven't read enough about walnuts to form an opinion one way or the other, searching the term "FDA conflict of interest" sure brings up a lot of stuff.


I posted it above... notice the date? Old news is really quite old.
 
2013-02-26 03:01:35 AM
Did you know that oranges cure scurvy? Hey presto! Oranges are now an illegal drug!

A normal food does not become a drug just because a seller mentions that it has health benefits. It is still just a healthy food.

It is ridiculous and over the top to claim that normal healthy food has suddenly been classified as a drug because it was noticed that it is healthy. It's about as stupid as those zero tolerance news articles where kindergartners were charged with drug crimes for bringing lemon drops to school. Calling normal healthy food a drug and trying to deny people access to it is not what the FDA was designed to do.

But don't let that stop you from expressing your righteous rage at walnuts, you  anti - nut - ite bastards.
 
2013-02-26 03:08:26 AM
Look, folks, you might want to control your ragey rage... this was in 2010.  As of today, you can still purchase Diamond Walnuts and they still have Omega 3 listed on the package:
http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Shelled-Walnuts-16-Ounce-Bags/dp/B001E Q4 GZ4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361865884&sr=8-1&keywords=diamond+walnuts

Contains walnuts in 16 ounce bags in each packet of 6(totally 96 ounces)
A great source of protein, fiber, vitamins and mineralsContains anti-oxidants and high percentage of omega-3 fatty acids
Inside a tough shell, its curly nutmeat and the edible papery skin adds bitterness
Originated in California


The only difference is that they don't say "that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer."

Ferfuxake, this is an old story and a non-story at that.
 
2013-02-26 03:12:55 AM

timujin: Look, folks, you might want to control your ragey rage... this was in 2010.  As of today, you can still purchase Diamond Walnuts and they still have Omega 3 listed on the package:
http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Shelled-Walnuts-16-Ounce-Bags/dp/B001E Q4 GZ4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361865884&sr=8-1&keywords=diamond+walnuts

Contains walnuts in 16 ounce bags in each packet of 6(totally 96 ounces)
A great source of protein, fiber, vitamins and mineralsContains anti-oxidants and high percentage of omega-3 fatty acids
Inside a tough shell, its curly nutmeat and the edible papery skin adds bitterness
Originated in California

The only difference is that they don't say "that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer."

Ferfuxake, this is an old story and a non-story at that.


Never mind, I see that my concerns over rage were limited to only a few folks and don't reflect the general tone of the thread.  Still... this has long since been settled.  This is also a repeat.  Why the hell is the article still green?
 
2013-02-26 04:35:03 AM

damageddude: Back in the 70s my parents always kept flat Coca-Cola in the medicine cabinet for upset stomachs based on our pediatrician's advice [wink wink]. If Coca-Cola dared market this medical benefit of their product they would have the FDA up their butt in no time flat.


Coke syrup is very effective against upset stomachs.  It's what I used to use as a kid.  It's tough finding the stuff now.  The last time I had really bad stomach cramp (after some food poisoning), a dose of the syrup really helped.
 
2013-02-26 06:45:21 AM
I just can't take a center-justified web page seriously.
 
2013-02-26 07:04:13 AM
Here, read the actual FDA enforcement letter that started this:

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825 .h tm

It's their standard enforcement language, if someone makes a claim that something behaves like a drug, the FDA says "ok, you're claiming it's behaving like a drug, then you need to get it approved as a drug.  Otherwise, stop making the claims, and we'll cheerfully go back to treating it like a food."

And the claims they were making aren't generic "it's good for you" claims, the FDA would have left them alone for that.  No, they were claiming pretty specific benefits for cancer, stroke, and heart disease prevention, and depression and arthritis treatment and prevention.  Those are NOT claims you make when you're trying to sell a food, those are claims you make for a drug.

The regulation isn't silly, it's not frivolous, it's entirely appropriate.  The FDA has no desire to actually regulate walnuts as a drug, that's not what they're trying to do.  They just want walnut marketers to stop claiming that walnuts have drug-like benefits.
 
2013-02-26 07:17:42 AM

Revek: kingoomieiii: Revek: We need to identify these useless crats and sue the government to have them fired.  They waste tax payer money and provide nothing but bad will to the public.

I absolutely LOVE it when someone walks in, strolls past 100 opposition comments, and posts a short comment glad-handing the article.

I didn't stroll, I breezed past them.  I need 500 dollars more medicine than I get monthly.  There are no programs for me.  I work, I have no insurance, I live in the land of plenty but I can't have any due to a system that is corrupt beyond redemption.  The FDA and their clients the drug company's will forever be on my shiat list for creating this environment.  They didn't do it alone but they are a huge influence.


Wait, you're upset with the FDA because we don't have a national health service in this country?  That's not their job.

The Affordable Care Act will finally kick in next January, and you'll be able to get insurance.  It's not perfect, true single-payer health care would be far better, but it's a good start.
 
2013-02-26 08:11:25 AM
What about chinnuts?
 
2013-02-26 08:41:39 AM

Broktun: DoBeDoBeDo: Hey FDA, how about getting on approving better treatments for DVT?   I'm tired of watching my vitamin K intake and testing my blood all the time.  You've already approved them for A Fib, just check the little box for DVT so my docs will presecribe them.

Xarelto got approved for DVT recently


Did it?  I hadn't heard anything, I know all the "new" drugs are getting their AFib approvals.  Wasn't about to drop $30/pill for daily meds
 
2013-02-26 08:46:29 AM

Broktun: DoBeDoBeDo: Hey FDA, how about getting on approving better treatments for DVT?   I'm tired of watching my vitamin K intake and testing my blood all the time.  You've already approved them for A Fib, just check the little box for DVT so my docs will presecribe them.

Xarelto got approved for DVT recently


You are my new hero, thanks!   Making appointment now.

You start to miss having salad/vegetables whenever you feel like instead of having to watch how much and how often you eat.
 
2013-02-26 09:34:25 AM

DarkVader: Revek: kingoomieiii: Revek: We need to identify these useless crats and sue the government to have them fired.  They waste tax payer money and provide nothing but bad will to the public.

I absolutely LOVE it when someone walks in, strolls past 100 opposition comments, and posts a short comment glad-handing the article.

I didn't stroll, I breezed past them.  I need 500 dollars more medicine than I get monthly.  There are no programs for me.  I work, I have no insurance, I live in the land of plenty but I can't have any due to a system that is corrupt beyond redemption.  The FDA and their clients the drug company's will forever be on my shiat list for creating this environment.  They didn't do it alone but they are a huge influence.

Wait, you're upset with the FDA because we don't have a national health service in this country?  That's not their job.

The Affordable Care Act will finally kick in next January, and you'll be able to get insurance.  It's not perfect, true single-payer health care would be far better, but it's a good start.


I'm upset with a corrupt system represented by people that are trying to say that walnuts are a new drug.  They waste time with frivolous crap like this while allowing drug company's to apply for patents on 60 year old drugs so they can sell them at outrageous prices with no over site on price fixing or any other controls that help us.
Don't talk to me about the joke that is the affordable care act.  No solution will ever work unless we attack the problem from all angles.
 
2013-02-26 01:18:12 PM

DarkVader: And the claims they were making aren't generic "it's good for you" claims, the FDA would have left them alone for that.  No, they were claiming pretty specific benefits for cancer, stroke, and heart disease prevention, and depression and arthritis treatment and prevention.  Those are NOT claims you make when you're trying to sell a food, those are claims you make for a drug.

The regulation isn't silly, it's not frivolous, it's entirely appropriate.  The FDA has no desire to actually regulate walnuts as a drug, that's not what they're trying to do.  They just want walnut marketers to stop claiming that walnuts have drug-like benefits.


WRONG!

Some foods actually do have health benefits. Citrus, for instance, DOES prevent and cure scurvy. Saying so does NOT make it a drug, or give cause to harass citrus growers into intimidated silence about citruses real health benefits until they do years of expensive studies to prove citrus as an FDA approved scurvy drug. It is still JUST a food...that also happens to cure scurvy. Also numerous studies have proved that cruciferous vegetables prevent cancer. Does that make broccoli a drug?

It may very well be that walnuts do prevent heart disease and cancer. Saying so, does not make the nut a drug. It is still just a food, that also happens to prevent heart disease and cancer.

I think the FDA is trying to silence information about healthy preventative foods. so that more uninformed fools continue to eat junk ( like hearth healthy labeled potato chips ffs) and end up with expensive diseases that they can be prescribed expensive FDA approved medications for. That way all the corporations who are playing the FDA's game profit enormously. The sick bastards who ate chips instead of walnuts, not so much.

But then again, we were told for years that eggs cause high cholesterol and you should never eat the yolk. Who started that rumor? Was it the FDA? The rumor started around the time that drug corporations were trying to push their new statin drugs like Lipitor, to lower cholesterol.

Now they are telling us that whole eggs are fine and healthy and do not, in fact, raise cholesterol,  and that statin drugs have serious side effects.

Maybe egg manufacturers were forced, by the FDA, into a position of doing expensive studies to prove that eggs DID NOT raise cholesterol, while meanwhile, statin drug users found out about the bad side effects the hard way.
 
2013-02-26 02:25:04 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Walnuts give me the runs.


So you're saying they should be marketing them as a cure for constipation?
 
Displayed 41 of 191 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report